Bias upon bias upon bias

by Abid Ullah Jan

The American political analysts have perfected the art of collectively disregarding facts, unanimously defying normative truth and standardizing their approach to proving Islam as an enemy of all things western. The beauty of their bias lies in the fact that one gets the point without having to buy their books or read their articles - merely the headlines are enough to understand the message. The apparent beauty of their speech, which lies in the economical use of words for demonising a people and their religion, might seem successful at the moment; it would, however, lead the world into the final tragedy of human history.

Should anyone wish to look at a perfect demonstration of a systematically outrageous bias over the years, I recommend articles by Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and a columnist for both the New York Post and The Jerusalem Post, available at http://www.danielpipes.org. From his representative writings one can find the so obvious chain of bias that finally made Islam and terrorism synonymous. In the 1989-94 period, the least offensive word "fundamentalism" was made a permanent feature of any discourse on Islam. Fundamentalism was then linked to extremism and finally to terrorism. Lately, the Bush administration is under pressure from the same forces to openly declare its misnomered war on Islam as an all out war on the non-existent "Militant" Islam.

 In his recent New York Post column, Daniel Pipes paid tributes the Bush administration for showing "impressive seriousness of purpose, discipline, and vision" in its "war on terrorism" (January 21, 2002). As usual, and as per the prevailing norm among the American analysts, Mr. Pipes went on to indicate a danger and suggest a solution: "There is just one glaringly weak spot: The Bush team adamantly refuses to acknowledge that there is an ideology that inspires America's enemies, preferring to ascribe its motives to simple 'evil.' Evil it is, but it follows from the specific set of radical utopian ideas known as militant Islam. Ignoring militant Islam today is like fighting World War II without fighting fascism, or fighting the cold war while wishing away communism."

On January 22, I transmitted a message to Mr. Pipes that reads as follows: "Reference to your above titled article, may I ask a couple of questions for the sake of my education. 1. If the terrorists attacking America are doing so due to 'militant Islamic' ideology, what does inspire the IRA terrorists? Doesn't militant Christianity inspire them? 2. What would you call Barouch Goldstein [who killed 29 Palestinians in Ibrahimi mosque on February 02, 1994]? Didn't militant Judaism inspire him? 3. Is it limited only to Muslims that any Muslim terrorist would be inspired by 'Militant Islam' but all other terrorists would not be inspired by their respective religions?"

 Mr. Pipes replied: "you can ask but I don't understand the point. IRA, Jews have not been blowing up US planes, so why bring them up?" I asked him again: "May I ask a bit further. Does your answer suggest that only those are terrorists who blow up US planes, and others are not? Mr. Pipes wrote back: "of course not." Upon further probing Mr. Pipes agreed that of course others, too, "are terrorists, as are ETA members, Colombians and many others. But I discuss none of them because my interests lie elsewhere."

With this one-dimensional approach to terrorism he suggests: "Aim the War on Terror at Militant Islam," (Los Angeles Times, Jan. 6, 2002). The bias is summed up in the introduction as: "Whom are we fighting? Two main culprits have emerged since Sept. 11: terrorism and Islam. The truth, more subtle, lies between the two--a terroristic version of Islam." Not satisfied with the progress so far, he complains that Colin Powell failed to connect terrorism to Islam, which "is appealing because it finesses some delicate questions about Islam, thereby making it easier to build an international coalition or minimize domestic repercussions."

The dilemma of these analysts and policy makers is that they cannot declare an all out war on Islam and its 1.4 billion adherents, for it would mean either to convert them from Islam, or exterminate them altogether; none of which is realistically possible with any conceivable strategy or weapon. They have realised that the US and its Western allies can never win such a permanent clash of civilization. For this reason, Thomas Friedman of NY Times comes out with the solution of a 'war within Islam," and the rest support him in proving that there are different versions of Islam. The acceptable one is the secular or moderate version, which limits Islam to merely a few optional rituals for worship. The rest is "Militant Islam," which according to Mr. Pipes is "a misanthropic, misogynist, triumphalist, millennarian, anti-modern, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, terroristic, jihadistic and suicidal."

 The "war within Islam," can be fought, in Mr. Pipes words, through "a simple and effective strategy: weaken militant Islam around the world and strengthen the moderate alternatives to it. Fight it militarily, diplomatically, legally, intellectually and religiously." Just imagine the response of these biased analysts and political leaders to any Muslim's call for a war within the US-led coalition, or a war within the Western civilisation, or a war within the US. Would they not order to bomb country after country to kill such an "extremist" and also arrange for chasing out his soul from the now American planet?

The American terror mongers fail to realize that they are sowing the seeds of hatred with their boundless bias and double standards. They call for winning the hearts and minds of the Muslims together with their unceasing attacks on their religion and the way of life. For instance, Martin L. Gross, who called for a revolution against the two party dictatorship in the US in his November 1993 book, "A call for Revolution," came out with a bundle of praises for General Musharraf's dictatorship in his January 24 article in the Washington Times. The two party dictatorship in the US is not acceptable to him but dictatorship in Pakistan is praiseworthy for being led by a person he called "Gorbachev of the Muslim world," assisting the US in its "war within Islam."

Islam is targeted in a very subtle and systematic way of which the Muslims are now more aware than at any time since 1989. It is easy for the analysts like Mr. Gross to let the American public believe that madrassah "continue to preach hatred and maintain semiliterate curriculum based mainly on the Koran." However, such comments will further strengthen faith of the Muslims who know from their experience that neither the Quran nor any of the Islamic institutions preach hatred. Unlike Musharraf, many Muslim find the western media arrogantly preaching. Is not it provocative to read: "Mr. Musharaff understands that the Muslim jihad against the West is futile, now and in the future"? Isn't it a mockery of Islam to daringly publish that the Islamic "traditional theories only stimulate misery" and keep Muslims in "the shadow of the ancient world."

It is extremely unfortunate on part of the Muslims to resort to scapegoating Islam in an apologetic manner rather than clarifying the misconceptions. Islam is not at fault for the Muslims' downfall. The Quran and Sunnah are not medireview theories, which have lost their utility in the modern world. Instead, the prevailing circumstances have further confirmed their validity. Just like any other society in the world, definitely there are good and bad people among the Muslims. The problem, however, is that the West blames it on Islam out of expediency and our own people confirm the twisted logic simply to safeguard their personal interests. The American media is all praises for Musharraf because, unlike his 62-minute speech, the US, with all its military might, could never set the process of undoing the world of Islam in motion.

Our apologetic actions, like targeting religious schools, simply confirm the western propaganda that there is something wrong with the Quran and Islamic teachings. Mr. Friedman, the proponent of a "war within Islam," expressed deep satisfaction over the way General Musharraf "dared to acknowledge publicly the real problem: that Muslim extremism, rooted in educational systems and ruling arrangements, has left much of the Muslim world in a backward state" (NY Times, Jan. 21, 2002). Mr. Friedman repeated his call that the world "needs a war within Islam, not with Islam." The reason for his jubilation is: "At least one leader has finally declared it. It would be nice if some Arab Muslim leaders now did the same."

There is no need for us to wage a war within Islam for the US. There is a need to understand that for its interests, the US transformed General Zia into pro-Islam Mujahid and General Musharraf into an anti-Islam secular bulwark. The US needed Zia to be a "fundamentalist," Jihad-leading figure, and now it needs Musharraf to be a "liberal," crusade- leading figure. It doesn't tax the wisdom too much to understand that Islam is not something to be cooked on a lunar stove for 11 years to be ready for implementation by Zia in Pakistan, nor is it an outdated ism that can be thrown away by Musharraf in the dust bin of history without any problem. The only outcome of such experimentation is germination of more and more seeds of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.

The Americans, for instance, do not know that there is absolutely no religious institution, not even a single one, in Pakistan that imparts military training. To the contrary, they would believe Newsday when it reports, "Musharraf ordered madrassas to end the military training that has helped make them recruiting centers for the Taliban and other extremist groups," (Jan. 16, 2002). All the military training centres were established by the Pakistani government with full financial, technical, logistic and moral backing of the US for training Mujahideen and later on the Taliban. Holding Islam and religious institutions responsible for these acts is the most ugly attempt at demonising a religion the world would ever see.

No matter how we may scapegoat Islam to please our masters in Washington, every act and every word comes back to haunt us. General Musharraf provided a golden opportunity to the biased American analysts, who wasted no time in exploiting his words for their own sinister objectives. Mr. Jed Babbin, writing in Washington Times (Jan. 17, 2002), for instance, was quick to seize the opportunity and tell the world: "Italian President Silvio Berlusconi's remarks, while undiplomatic, got so much attention because they were true. What is most shocking about Mr. Musharraf's speech is that some of the things he said sound like Mr. Berlusconi wrote them."

On all fronts of the western media there is an anti-Islam bias upon bias simply to prove that contrary to the Islamic belief, Islam is unfit to govern Muslim societies. What else could be the best example of hate speech in this regard than Bruice Fein's words in Washington Times: "Ataturk keenly understood the incendiarism of a legally anointed and allegedly superior religion claiming jurisdiction over every nook and cranny of political and private life to any Western-style, democratic flowering," (January 15, 2002). Important to note is the fact that this bias is shaping the American and European policies towards Islam. Regardless of the violence and counter violence, these approaches are sinking the world deeper and deeper into the disorder of the soul and the disorder of the states. The US attitude since September 11 clearly demonstrates that falling away from old truths and inventing new norms is a sure recipe for disaster. Standards erected out of expediency are hurled down, soon enough, out of expediency. Our religious norms have a reality independent of immediate social utility. Assuming them out of date or pompous fabrication of our ancestors for serving the interests of the age would soon lead us into the promised Armageddon. Diluting religion and diffusing religious institutions is not the answer; empowering them to understand and counter the American bias definitely is.

Concluded. January 27, 2002